Saturday 2 June 2012 17.56 EDT
First published on Saturday 2 June 2012 17.56 EDT

"Cricketer in Wanting to Maximise Earnings Shock". It's on the same wavelength as "Dog Bites Man".

It was a surprise, a nasty one, when the England and Wales Cricket Board announced that Kevin Pietersen was retiring from one-day international cricket. But this is no reason to vilify him, as some have, on the basis that he wants to earn as much money as possible before he hangs up his bat.

If the motivation of Pietersen's retirement really is to maximise his earnings then he is the last cricketer in a very long list, which might begin with WG Grace, to do so. The doctor was an amateur in name only; he made sure that he raked in the cash in far greater quantities than his professional peers. In the 1930s Don Bradman was capable of fierce brinkmanship with an Australian board, which threatened to deny him income by stopping him writing in the newspapers.

More recently Derek Underwood, dear old Deadly, a recent president of the MCC and all-round good egg, offered his services to Kerry Packer and the South African rebel tours towards the end of his career. So did his Kent colleagues, Alan Knott and Bob Woolmer. In the 1980s English cricketers were falling over one another in the chase to get one of those lucrative rebel tour contracts, England's current batting coach, Graham Gooch, included. Most of them shrugged their shoulders and talked about having to pay the mortgage when accused of disloyalty.

By comparison what has Pietersen done? He has decided to retire from ODI cricket prematurely. And there is the assumption – it is only that at the moment – that in addition to the IPL, he will join some of the burgeoning Twenty20 tournaments around the world (such as Australia's Big Bash) when he is not playing Test cricket. While we all rail against the glut of 50-over matches and Australia being shipped over here this month primarily to fill ECB coffers, Pietersen is condemned for not wishing to play in these cash-cow contests. There is nothing wrong with 50-over cricket as the last World Cup demonstrated; it is just the number and scheduling of these matches that grates.

Pietersen stirs the emotions like no other. He divides us all. It seems as if some people hate him, while others simply don't like him. In fact, that brashness, tinged with arrogance and vanity, hides some of his qualities. For example, we seldom think of Pietersen as a durable cricketer. Yet since his international debut against Zimbabwe in November 2004 he has, by a huge margin, played more cricket for England than anyone else.

During that time England have won their first ICC trophy, the World Twenty20 in the Caribbean in 2010 where he was man of the tournament, and they have been ranked the No1 Test side. In all of this Pietersen has played a key role, sufficient, perhaps, to earn some leeway.

The England management may argue he has had a lot of leeway already. By all accounts he is not always an easy member of the squad. He can be high maintenance; he makes demands; he says stupid things and sometimes he tweets them; he has his grievances, some of which are understandable. It was the daftest of decisions to make him England captain in 2008 but he can hardly be blamed for taking the job on when it was offered. Nor was it so surprising that he should be hurt to be removed from office after three Testsin charge.

Whatever ructions he causes behind the scenes, what we see on the field is often stunning. After a trough in the UAE this winter he has been in sparkling form, recapturing some of the magic of the early years. Moreover, in the last 12 months his fielding, often a good barometer of commitment, has been outstanding. When England seek to defend their Twenty20 trophy in Sri Lanka in September they will be a weaker side without Pietersen.

The England management and Pietersen have botched the situation. There must have been a compromise available, yet none was found. Surely there was a way in which he could have retired after the Twenty20 World Cup? The ECB, flexing their muscles, are sticking to the letter of their central contracts. If Pietersen is given leeway, the argument goes, then who is next to go? That is a risk worth taking. An exodus, in my view, would be most unlikely.

Meanwhile, Pietersen, overplaying his hand again, has had enough of being chided by his employers. So we will have a sad and unnecessary situation when the World Twenty20 gets under way in September. If the status quo remains, Pietersen will be pining to be in Sri Lanka. And England will be pining to have him there.